Editorial: Oyster farm fight points to Super Court

THE LUNNY FAMILY’s decision to take its case to the U.S. Supreme Court should not come as a big surprise. It might be a bigger surprise if the court decides to hear the Point Reyes oyster farm’s case.

The Lunnys’ move comes on the heels of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling to not grant the family a rehearing. The Lunnys had asked the court to reconsider a three-judge panel’s 2-1 decision to not second-guess the Interior Department’s "discretionary" order not to renew the oyster farm’s longstanding lease.

To many observers, the lease had run its course, a 40-year time line established by Congress to phase out the commercial operation and return that part of the Drakes Estero to wilderness.

Lunny, a West Marin rancher, took over the lease in 2005 and has turned the historic business into a popular gathering spot and one of the West Coast’s primary sources of shucked oysters. The family has drawn support from restaurateurs, customers, local ranchers and Marin environmentalists who consider the oyster farm a success story for aquaculture.

Politicians such as U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Marin Supervisor Steve Kinsey have fought to save the oyster farm. Others have stayed out of the fight.

The state Department of Fish and Wildlife has issued conflicting opinions on the state’s underlying rights to control the lease and has shown no interest in joining the battle.

The court of appeals said the department acted within its jurisdiction, but stayed away from whether that action was right or wrong.

"Drakes Bay’s disagreement with the value judgments made by the secretary is not a legitimate basis on which to set aside the decision," the court ruled.

The ruling was a setback, but Lunny is not giving up his fight. He says the department has the legal leeway to extend his lease and its environmental process was flawed. His backers also have complained that the business was treated unfairly by the National Park Service, which advanced a public and political case for removing the business. It was an unseemly tactic, one that has ranchers in the park worried they may be next, despite promises otherwise.

Feinstein, who has blasted the park service’s ham-handed handling of the lease, pushed for giving the family a 10-year extension.

Such an extension, if not out of the question at this point, should not be renewable but should include bringing the rent up to today’s market levels and requiring the oyster farm to provide environmental education programs.

Lunny was asking the court for a temporary injunction to allow him to continue his operation until his lawsuit directly contesting the Interior Department’s order could be heard. Taking his request to the Supreme Court buys the oyster farm some time.

The farm will stay open until the court decides whether to consider the case.

While its fate may be in legal limbo, there’s no question the oyster farm has a lot of local support and the park service needs to mend fences with a community that has not been shy about showing its support for a local farming family.